On Wed 18 May 2011 18:58, Jim Rees <jimreesma@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jim Rees <jimreesma@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I would tend to agree.   
>
> ...or not.    I can't help feeling there is real value to having the
> exception handler being run in the same dynamic context as when raise
> was originally invoked -- for example supporting a runtime debugger.  

The wind thrashing is what I was objecting to, yes.  There's utility in
both: catching pre-unwind for debugging, and after unwinding so that you
know e.g. that the current output port has some sane value.

My concern is about the rewinding behavior, more than anything.

Regards,

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports